Watching the World Athletics Championship on television I was struck by the way the winners of races and events, celebrated their victories. Their faces showed relief, delight and joy. They immediately shook hands with their competitors and waved to their supporters in the crowd. Compare that with the way the typical Premiership footballer behaves after scoring. The celebrations are occasionally lighthearted but more often than not they are aggressive, displaying defiance and what looks like contempt for their opponents and critics. These antics are mirrored by the behaviour of the crowd as the fans also celebrate, with grown men punching the air and yelling obscenities and insults at the opposing fans.

Is this because football players and fans are more passionate about their sport than those who follow other sports? Not very likely is it. All successful sportsmen are passionate about their sport, it is just that some behave better than others, as do some sports fans. A recent photo shows former England captain David Beckham squaring up to an opponent with the two men pushing their faces at each other. This is a familiar sight on a football pitch, with grown men shoving and pushing each other. Am I alone in thinking that this is childish behaviour, mouthing obscenities and threats? Doesn’t this remind everyone of little boys squabbling in the playground? I feel that such theatricals will only be stamped out when the football authorities insist that any hostilities are postponed until the end of the match and then the grappling players should be allowed to pound each other freely for the entertainment of the audience. I also feel that when members of the audience go over the top in their obscenities and racist insults, they should be made to stand no more than ten feet away from the insulted player at the end of the match and repeat everything they said earlier. Perhaps it would be fair to give the abusive fan a three-to-five second start before the player runs after them. That might be more interesting than the match itself.

I’ve explained elsewhere on MY-T that I attended an oustandingly rough secondary school in the sixties and am no stranger to a violent society. However, there are some things I do not understand about our present state of affairs—shootings, stabbings, drug peddling. When I was growing up there were several incredibly rough estates in the area. Gossip among the kids and their parents was loud and constant. Everyone knew which men on the estates had easy access to weapons, who stole cars, who beat their wives, which kids were violent, etc ,etc. Every now and again squad cars full of police would swoop on these addresses and people would be taken away in handcuffs. Sometimes they would be away for a long time. We always assumed that if we knew who the villains were, so did the police and that alone was a deterrent to many others from embarking on lives of crime.

Later, when working on national newspapers, where gossip was also rife, we all heard tales of traders in all kinds of stolen goods, where to buy almost anything, including guns or drugs. We heard where you could fence anything that was knocked off. One shop near Blackfriars was well known to be the place where stolen car radios or mobile phones could be easily exchanged for drugs or money to buy drugs. We also heard that the police knew as much, if not more, about these felons than we did, yet strangely never seemed to act on their knowledge. Crime reporters would say that the police were unable to justify raids on the premises of these lawbreakers and unable to gain the search warrants enabling them to do so. Other, more cynical types, claimed that it was not in the police’s best interests to do so. This was just petty crime and it was quite handy for them to know exactly where the stolen goods were being fenced.

This later state of affairs appears to have developed alarmingly. It has been revealed that the police in Liverpool already know who instigated the recent shooting of the 11-year old boy but so far have been unable to act on this. It was also stated that the guns were being carried not by gangsters but by youthful petty criminals. I am sorry to say, this but the blind eye attitude towards the petty crime I referred to above has fostered the wave of drug dealing, stabbings and shootings from which our inner cities are currently suffering.

Police intelligence in every town and City must include the names of most of the main drug dealers, gun suppliers and fences operating there and my confusion is that I cannot see why our police forces are now unable to act on this intelligence, even after a major crime has been committed. If I, or any, of the other normally law-abiding citizens in this country, transgress the law in any way, we are almost sure to get our collars felt. Thump a mugger, detain a robber, trap a burglar on illegally installed barbed wire, and we are sure to be prosecuted. So, why, oh why, do we have no confidence that gun crimes, stabbings and violent assaults by known criminals will be prosecuted just as sucessfully?

In order to restore that confidence it is vital that all “blind eyes,” are opened and “zero tolerance,” towards all real criminals is practised rather than just preached by politicians. David Cameron is just the latest to grab headlines by claiming that he will be discussing the concept of “zero tolerance,” with former New York Mayor Rudolph Julianni.

Give me a break! What is there to discuss? Zero tolerance means that anyone known to supply drugs is arrested, as is anyone fencing stolen goods, supplying weapons, demanding money on the streets, soliciting, kerb crawling or in any other way offending civilised society. It is not just directed at those begging, spitting out chewing gum, dropping litter, or writing on walls. It also means that anyone with information which could lead to the prevention, or solving of a crime, will also be prosecuted if they do not willingly supply that information to the authorities.

Laws supporting this concept are already on the statute books and have been for years. Zero tolerance just means that all of us, citizens, police and polticians alike, must refuse to tolerate any criminal activity. So why are we tolerating it now? I would hazard a guess that it’s because tolerance comes cheap, in both effort and money and “zero tolerance” doesn’t.

The recent tributes to Bill Deedes and this morning’s Daily Telegraph interview with 90-year old Dennis Healey highlight the impending loss of a generation who lived through two world wars, several skirmishes, many Government changes, massive disasters and a fair bit of progress. Very soon there will be no-one from that generation left alive. No-one (at least amongst our indigenous population), whose memory of bombing raids or rationing is based on fact rather than fiction.

Sadly, some people are still experiencing the shock of learning that sons, fathers, uncles, brothers–and indeed (now) daughters, sisters, aunts and mothers–have been killed in action whilst serving their country, but the scale is entirely different from that suffered during the two world wars. The generation which is passing away from us leaves a legacy of learning and experience which must never be allowed to be buried. The only way that legacy will ever be passed on to future generations is, for all of us still breathing, to recall it regularly and communicate it with a passion to our children and grandchildren.

The enthusiastic teaching of the history of the last one hundred years should be the most important feature of any current or future school curriculum. It is up to all of us who knew this departing generation to ensure that their experiences are never forgotten. We already know that our polticians, of all parties, pay little, or no, heed to history, unless it is to blame their opponents for the ills of the past.

The plethora of statistics in today’s press provide no comfort for those who fear the nation is hurtling downhill with no brakes. Apparently, despite many Government reassurances to the contrary, reported crime for 2005-2006 showed an unhealthy rise of 2% to 1,220,198, which is even more alarming if you consider that most crimes go unreported and unrecorded. In the ten years since the Dunblane massacre in 1996 the total number of firearms offences in the UK rose from 14,000 to 21,500, within which the number of deaths from shootings is roughly unchanged at 50 while the number of woundings and attempted murders has increased by 50%. The bad news then is that far more people are now being shot, but the good news is that the gunmen’s aim seems to have worsened.

Other statistics give cause for concern on another front. According to figures from Rentokil, the rat population of the UK has exploded, thanks to warmer winters and summer flooding, to over 800 million, with 250 million of those having taken up residence in London. This massive increase is expected to continue for some time as local authorities cut waste disposal collectons to one a forthight and citizens are encouraged to recycle as much kitchen waste as possible.

Compared to the rat statistics, the crime figures looked positively modest. According to rough calculations we now have something like a 1 in 30 chance of being the victim of crime (modestly assuming the real crime figures are roughly double the reported number) but more than a 13 to 1 on chance of being infested by disease carrying rodents.

I wonder if Gordon Brown or David Cameron will feel moved to make a public statement about the possible return of bubonic plague to our shores. I doubt it, neither probably has any idea of a solution, apart possibly from making it illegal for rats to leave the sewers, or asking for them to be licensed. Hey, that could actually be a money spinner. If every rat is asked to cough up 50 quid non-sewer tax, the money could be invested in our health service.

There are two related yet starkly contrasting stories in today’s Daily Telegraph, both involving 12-year old boys committing crimes. One is the horrific front-page story of an 11-year old boy being shot dead, apparently by a 12-year old. The other, on page 4, concerns a 12-year old who assaulted an elderly neighbour by throwing a sausage at them. Naturally enough, the police are still looking for the boy who committed murder but have already charged and begun prosecuting the boy who threw the sausage.

This is not intended to be a flippant comment on our times but it once again highlights the reasons why people have lost faith in the protection provided by our police forces. I’m sure the police will move heaven and earth to bring the young gunman to justice but I’m dismayed by the questions asked by the Merseyside Assistant Chief Constable, …”Who is the killer, and who put the gun in his hand?” He says someone out there knows.

I have a couple of questions for him. Why don’t you know who is putting guns in the hands of children in your area? And, how difficult is it to find out where children are getting their weapons? The CID surely have informants who supply that kind of information The one thing we all know about children is, they can’t keep a secret. If some of their number are carrying guns, others will gossip about it. If the police were already working hard at chasing gun suppliers before yesterday’s shooting, the message is clear, they need to devote more time, effort and expense on it.

When two stories like these appear in a single edition of a newspaper they are sure to generate a degree of jeering. The case involving the sausage thrower has apparently cost the taxpayer 2,000. Admittedly the two “crimes” were committed in different districts–the first on Merseyside, the second in Manchester– but wouldn’t we all feel a lot more comfortable if ludicrous cases were shelved, saving time and money which could be directed towards preventing more horrific crimes?

I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again (and probably again and again…) raising the age limits for drivers or drinkers would be purely cosmetic changes and do nothing to improve the problems of dangerous driving or teenage binge drinkers. The reasons both proposals have been put forward are exactly the same, they are to give the impression that our leaders are concerned about these issues and are taking action.

If the driving age-limit is raised to 18 the only significant result will be resentment amongst the handful of 17-year olds desperate to get behind the wheel and wealthy enough to afford driving lessons. A tiny statistical improvement in teenage road deaths might be achieved, but the real problem of bad driving on our roads will still exist. That is principally because some people, across all the age bands, drive like complete wallies. They consider themselves good drivers, yet when faced with a hazard are more inclined to reach for their horn than for their brake pedal. The only thing that will cure these “wallies” is the fear of getting caught and the threat of severe penalties.

Likewise, drunkeness amongst teenagers will not be reduced by raising the legal age of the right to purchase alcohol, from 18 to 21. Teenagers all over the US still get hideously drunk despite a 21-age limit in many states. They carry fake IDs or shop where they are unlikely to get challenged. Can those who propose or support this change in the law not see that making something illegal is not the same as stopping it? Virtually every food shop on every high street, or street corner in the UK, now sells alcohol and few are equipped to refuse when it is demanded by those who might appear to be under-age.

The answer to both problems is to create a greater sense of responsibilty in all of us and that is not something that can be achieved by the simple process of passing a law. If the Powers-That-Be would concentrate on ensuring our existing laws are enforced we would all benefit. We already have laws against bad driving and bad behaviour in both public and private places, but the perpetrators of those crimes know full well they are unlikely ever to be brought to account for their misdeeds. It would be absolutely no comfort to anyone to know, for instance, that perfectly well-behaved and sensible teenagers are being prevented from either driving or buying drinks, because the Government can’t be bothered to do its job properly. And, hello, does anyone really think that any kid stupid enough to dive like a maniac will be sensible enough to observe a new age limit, or that the wild drunken idiots who rampage on our streets will stop drinking because it is illegal for them to do so?

The greatest proportion of fatal road accidents involve drivers in the 17-25 age range, so the masterminds who guard our safety have come up with the plan to raise the minumum driving age to 18.

Anyone but an idiot will see that all this will do is to eliminate the number of 17 year-old drivers who are involved in accidents. This is not of course because the Powers-That-Be, believe it is worse for 17-year olds to die than anyone else, it is because the Government hopes this will allow it to publish statistics which show there has been a reduction in teenage deaths from road accidents. By narrowing the age-range our leaders believe the accident statistics will improve. In fact all it will do is cause arguments of the sort ”We can carry guns and fight for our country at 17, but not drive a car.” It will also encourage more and more youngsters to go for motor-bikes and scooters which are even more dangerous modes of transport for the driver.

In fact most people do not pass their driving test until after their 18th birthday, and given the trend towards further education and the associated student loans, the average age people are learning to drive cars is increasing, consequently the number of qualified 17-year old drivers is very small. This proposal is yet another move by the Government to give the impression that it really cares about our safety. It would be far more sensible to police our roads properly and instead of installing cameras simply to provide a revenue stream for the local forces, to use them and proper traffic patrols, (some in unmarked vehicles), to spot those who are tail-gating, cutting in and out of lanes without signalling or driving erratically.

Can anybody actually remember the last time they saw a motorist pulled over for something other than speeding, driving whilst untaxed, or driving in a bus lane? Come to think of it, can anybody recall the last time they saw a police car which wasn’t already racing through traffic at break-neck speed with its siren going. Proper policing of our roads, heavy penalties for culprits, and enforced training sessions for convicted drivers would say a lot more about our Government’s commitment to road safety than the simple, cosmetic process of raising the age limit. It would however, involve a great deal of expense and some seriously hard work on the part of those in power and that is probably too much to ask.

As a poor soul deprived of satellite television on a normal basis, I took the opportunity when staying at a friend’s house in Spain to watch some boxing from America. I know it is a cruel and barbaric sport but it is one which has held a spell over me for most of my life. In recent years I have become bored however by watching British “world champions” fighting imported stiffs who have no hope of even putting up a decent fight let alone winning. The fights I watched from the US had an element that has been missing from those involving UK fighters, in every case both fighters were trying to win. Checking the ranking lists I note that there are at least five “world champions,” in every single weight division, including those supposedly dominated by Ricky Hatton and Joe Calzache. Somehow these world champions seem never to fight each other. Yesterday it was announced that Hatton is to fight another “unbeaten great” Floyd Mayweather. Interestingly, no report of this intended clash has drawn attention to the fact that Mayweather does not currently hold a world title as he retired after his last fight. So Hatton should he win will not be unifying two of the world titles. Personally, I expect Mayqeather to win should he be anywhere near his best, but it is worth remarking that in all the talk of prospective opponents for either fighter, the name of Miguel Angel Cotto has never been mentioned. Cotto is also unbeaten and briefly held a version of the world title currently claimed by Hatton, light welter-weight. He gave it up when in his next fight he won a version of the welter-weight title.

The reason I suspect that Cotto is never mentioned in the same breath as Hatton or Mayweather is that he is a very tough Puerto-Rican with a destructive punch. Whereas Mayweather has scored 24 stoppages in 38 fights and Hatton 31 in 43 fights, Cotto has stopped 25 opponents in 30 bouts and all of his most recent fights have been against top contenders. Let’s just hope the Hatton/Mayweather lives up to the hype but don’t expect the winner to fight Cotto.

Yesterday I was travelling through South London on a bus when it was held up at one particular stop where it was boarded by police and ticket inspectors. Standing at that stop as we pulled up were four police officers and six ticket inspectors. This enormous resource found one teenaged boy who was held for further questioning. A few weeks ago when out walking I could not believe my eyes when I witnessed eleven police officers and about ten ticket inspectors performing the same task. I appreciate that it is in all our interests for fare dodgers to be apprehended but is the cost of these exercises really justified by the results, or is it just another example of the pursuit of Government set targets? Catching fare dodgers on buses is hardly taxing work for either the inspectors or the police. It occurs to me that in all the years I have been travelling on tube trains at night, a time when most real crime like stabbings and muggings occur, I have never winessed such a heavy deployment of the transport police. Perhaps this is just further confirmation that money is more important than people.